Government has ‘plain duty' to assist Omagh inquiry with swift disclosure
Lord Turnbull said his experience to date over the cooperation of some state agencies with the inquiry had caused him to have 'some concerns'.
The inquiry chair was speaking at the end of two days of hearings in which the legal representatives of core participants delivered opening statements.
The Real IRA bomb in the Co Tyrone town in August 1998 killed 29 people, including a woman who was pregnant with twins, in the worst single atrocity in the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
The public inquiry was set up by the previous secretary of state Chris Heaton-Harris to examine whether the explosion could have been prevented by the UK authorities.
Lord Turnbull said he understood the challenges of providing disclosure of relevant documents to the inquiry were 'significant'.
But he added: 'The fact remains that two years have already passed since the secretary of state announced that there was to be an enquiry.
'At many times since that point the progress towards setting up the inquiry and then of trying to move towards evidential hearings, has appeared to be frustratingly slow.
'Difficulties over providing disclosure of course impact on the ability to schedule evidential hearings.'
The inquiry chair said some of those watching may have observed that if successive governments had 'not so staunchly set their face against a public inquiry the problems now being grappled with would not be so acute'.
He added: 'Having opposed the setting up of an inquiry so long, there is a plain duty on the Secretary of State (Hilary Benn) and others in government to remedy that now by making available whatever resources are necessary to ensure that full disclosure can be swiftly made available.
'I say that not just because of the passage of time.
'My experience to date has caused me to have some concerns.
'I have not been convinced that some of those with whom the inquiry has to depend upon to provide it with the material it seeks have always been in a position properly to engage with the inquiry or to dedicate the necessary resources to those tasks.
'I therefore trust after all that has been said over today and yesterday, that my remarks and concerns will be passed on to the relevant ministers and others who manage the responses to the inquiry's requests.'
Lord Turnbull also said that the inquiry would not 'simply accept statements' that documents had been lost or destroyed.
He said: 'Where claims are made that documents of importance have been destroyed or cannot be located, material providers can expect such assertions to be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny.
'Accordingly the inquiry will expect to hear detailed evidence as to the nature of the efforts made to locate any such documents and the processes around their storage and retention.
'And having done so, the inquiry will draw such inferences as seem appropriate in light of the nature and importance of the documents concerned, alongside the quality of any evidence given by way of explanation for their absence.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's tsar attacks ‘two-tier' plans to prosecute Northern Ireland veterans
Sir Keir Starmer's Northern Ireland veterans' tsar has branded plans to axe a law protecting Troubles veterans from prosecution as 'immoral' and 'two-tier justice'. David Johnstone, the veterans' commissioner for Northern Ireland, said that repealing the Legacy Act would lead to 'vexatious lawfare' against former soldiers. He told The Telegraph that up to 70 former soldiers would be forced into the dock 'for doing their jobs' fighting the IRA on behalf of the British government. Mr Johnstone, a former Army reservist, was appointed by Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland Secretary, in January to act as an independent voice for veterans. He has demanded that the Government abandons its plan, claiming that it will lead to a situation where former IRA terrorists have legal protections not afforded to veterans. The high-profile intervention will be another blow to Labour's legislative agenda, as the proposals face mounting opposition and protests by the Armed Forces community. Parliament will hold a debate next month after a petition demanding protections for veterans against Troubles prosecutions garnered more than 145,000 signatures. The 2023 Legacy Act put an end to fresh historical inquests into deaths that occurred in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, as well as civil actions. It created the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which would review deaths and serious injuries that occurred during the conflict. However, Labour pledged in its manifesto to scrap the legislation, which it said was unpopular with Irish political parties and victims' groups as well as being incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The plans to repeal the legislation have caused alarm among veterans, who are worried that they will be forced into legal proceedings for actions they took decades ago. Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Johnstone said that it was wrong to persecute veterans for 'doing their jobs' when many Troubles-era attacks on British soldiers were never investigated. He said: 'It's lopsided, it's two-tier justice, and if the Government thinks that they can reverse this and there not be pushback from veterans, well, I think they're in for a surprise, because veterans are just not going to stand for it.' Mr Johnstone added: 'The pressure is on that this British Government should not make reversals that will put soldiers in the dock for doing their jobs.' He estimates that 33 inquests would 'almost certainly' be allowed to proceed if the legislation is repealed, around half of which involve state forces pulling the trigger. 'You could be looking at 50, 60, 70, soldiers having files passed to the PPS [Northern Ireland's public prosecution service], many of them ending up in the dock,' he said. Mr Johnstone said that repealing the law as the Government plans to would lead to a 'lopsided' approach to post-Troubles justice. One of the most controversial elements of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement saw paramilitary prisoners released from jail as part of securing an end to the conflict. The Commissioner said: 'The then-Labour government came to the society in Northern Ireland, and said, 'Look, in order to have peace, you must accept terrorists being let out of jail… royal pardons, effective amnesty for terrorists'. 'Then there was the decommissioning of weapons, which meant that the evidence that could have put terrorists in prison was destroyed. 'So society was asked to accept all of those things. And yet, 27 years on, we have this ongoing vexatious lawfare which is targeting and demonising those who wore the uniform.' He continued: 'It was a legal Act of Parliament that sent them here. When they went out on the ground, and particularly the incidents that are caught up in these inquests, those soldiers were given orders by superior officers, and they carried out those orders. 'So the demonisation and this attempt to rewrite history is really why there is such a pushback among veterans.' One of the men who could be caught up in the courts is Glen Espie, formerly a part-time soldier of the Ulster Defence Regiment, who survived two revenge murder attempts by the IRA. Mr Espie took part in an SAS operation in Loughgall, Co Armagh, in March 1987, when an IRA unit mounted a gun and bomb attack on the local police station. All eight members of the unit were shot dead after a gun battle. A civilian was also killed. Mr Johnstone warned that Loughgall will be 'one of the first inquests that will come down the line' if the Legacy Act is repealed. 'Where is the inquest into the attack on Glen Espie and the many other thousands of people who lost their lives in Northern Ireland and many, many more who are injured and who carry the scars of the Troubles?' Mr Johnstone grew up in Northern Ireland and is himself a former soldier, having signed up for the Royal Irish Regiment Reserves in 1988, before going on to serve in Iraq in 2004. As part of his role, he has spoken to many ex-servicemen who served during The Troubles, now mostly in their seventies and older, who fear ending up in court. 'I don't know any veterans that are afraid of the truth. But veterans, as far as they're concerned, followed the law. They were given orders. 'In that scenario there's something immoral about dragging them through a legal process, particularly when it's clear it is just part of a wider vexatious lawfare.' In February last year, the High Court in Belfast ruled that elements of the Legacy Act passed by the Tories breached the ECHR. Opponents who brought the legal challenge said that the parts of the legislation breached Articles 2 and 3, the Right to Life and the Prohibition of Torture. Veterans' concerns have become more acute after an inquest earlier this year ruled that SAS soldiers were not justified in opening fire and killing a gang of IRA men in Clonoe, Co Tyrone, in 1992. Kevin Barry O'Donnell, Sean O'Farrell, Peter Clancy, and Patrick Vincent died after carrying out a machine gun attack on the nearby Coalisland RUC station during which 60 shots were fired but nobody was injured. The coroners' report cites previous judgements on whether the use of force was compatible with Article 2 of the ECHR. While the Government has challenged the ruling and plans to submit it for judicial review, Mr Johnstone said that the judgement had 'set alarm bells among the veteran community'. Mr Benn told the Commons in December that he would seek to 'correct the mistakes of the previous government's approach, ensure compliance with the ECHR, and deliver on what this Government has promised'. But Mr Johnstone said: 'The ECHR was not designed to be applied to terrorists. It was designed for innocent people'. The commissioner has met with Mr Benn in person twice, and the subject of the second meeting was specifically how to deal with legacy issues. 'There's no doubt that his ear is open to receiving the information about the feelings of veterans,' Mr Johnstone said. But he added: 'The default seems to be, 'Well, it was in our manifesto, we've promised to do this, therefore we have to do it', as opposed to, well that promise may have been made in good faith during the campaign, but you must face the reality of now.' The commissioner also warned that scrapping the Act would have a detrimental effect on recruitment to the military. 'Why would any young person want to join the military, if 50 years after an incident, in say, Ukraine, or whatever operational environment, there could be a knock at the door in the middle of the night and you're dragged through court proceedings potentially charged with murder,' he said. 'It just defies belief.' Mr Johnstone mentioned the case of Dennis Hutchings, a Troubles veteran who died in 2021 aged 80, while he was on trial in Belfast over a 1974 shooting. He also recalled appearing at a ceremony commemorating the 80th anniversary of VE Day, and meeting an elderly veteran who served in Operation Market Garden in the Netherlands. 'The contrast between a man who is lauded for answering the call of his nation and going to Market Garden in the Second World War, and then Dennis Hutchings, who was only 20 years younger, dying in a hotel room on his own, dragged through 10 years of court for what?' he asked. 'For answering the call of his nation, donning the uniform and following orders.' Mr Johnstone said: 'Surely as a society, we're better than that, and this is why I feel like the Government has to really take a step back.' Mr Benn insisted that the Government was right to scrap the effective Troubles amnesty. He said: 'The Legacy Act has been rejected in Northern Ireland and found by our domestic courts to be unlawful, not least because it would have offered immunity to terrorists. Any incoming government would have had to repeal unlawful legislation and it is simply wrong for anyone to suggest otherwise.' He said that the Government's commitment to veterans in Operation Banner [the deployment of British troops to Northern Ireland] was 'unshakeable' He added: 'The Legacy Act did nothing to help our veterans – it offered only false and undeliverable promises. 'I and the Defence Secretary are engaging with our veterans community and with all interested parties over future legislation, and we will ensure that there are far better protections in place.'
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Daily Mail
DAVID DAVIS: Which side is Labour on - the troops who defended this nation in Northern Ireland, or those who tried to destroy it?
British troops went to Northern Ireland to save lives. Today, prosecutors pursue them for doing just that. To understand how we reached this appalling state of affairs, we must return to the beginning. In 1969 the British Army deployed to Northern Ireland not as an occupying force but as a peacekeeping one. Their mission was to shield the Catholic community from loyalist mobs amid spiralling sectarian violence. The IRA and their supporters are now trying to cynically rewrite that basic truth. The early years of the Troubles did not feature unrest, but murder. It was Paramilitary killings, as opposed to arrests, which defined the conflict: take the Warrenpoint ambush in 1979, where 18 British soldiers were killed and over 20 more were wounded by IRA bombs. But the IRA's campaign was not just against soldiers: its terrorists slaughtered innocent civilians, too. In Omagh in 1998, a bomb planted by the so-called Real IRA killed 29 and injured 200. These were not military operations. They were cowardly attacks on the defenceless. And yet, astonishingly, those who perpetrated such atrocities now recast themselves as victims. The IRA peddles a grotesque inversion of the truth, downplaying the scale of its crimes, while promoting a narrative of 'state abuses' designed to paint terrorists as martyrs and soldiers as villains. The Troubles killed more than 3,500 people, and injured more than 50,000. Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries caused roughly 90 per cent of the deaths. In stark contrast, British soldiers operated under the strict constraints of Operation Banner, bound by the 'yellow card' rules of engagement, which required restraint, warnings and proportionality. Time and time again, we see examples of the British military displaying courageous restraint in their confrontations with the IRA. One such case is that of Captain Herbert Westmacott, an SAS officer who was killed in an IRA ambush. Having witnessed their commanding officer brutally gunned down, his patrol entered the house from which the terrorist had fired the shots that killed him – not to exact revenge, but to detain the gunman. These troops chose justice over vengeance. Meanwhile, 1,400 soldiers and police officers died, while the Army killed only 300 IRA terrorists: a stark indicator of the lethal, asymmetric war they faced. Our troops served with discipline and honour in near-impossible conditions. And the facts bear this out: more Catholics were killed by the IRA than by any other group during the Troubles. So much for their claims to be liberators. Which brings me to the Clonoe incident, now the subject of a politically loaded inquest. Readers may already be aware of some of the facts. In February 1992, Special Branch learnt that an IRA team, armed with a Soviet DShK ('Dushka') heavy machine gun, would attack the Coalisland police station. The intelligence indicated that the attack would be mounted from the Clonoe chapel car park, so the SAS commander's plan was to close in on the IRA operatives and arrest them there as they mounted the heavy machine gun on to their stolen lorry. At 7.40pm on that dark February night, 12 members of the SAS were in position on the boundary of the car park, behind the hedgerow. However, the intelligence briefing was wrong. Instead, at around 10.40pm, the DShK was used to attack the Coalisland police station. Sixty rounds were fired at close range from the DShK. The attackers' intent was clear: to kill police officers. The gunfire could clearly be heard, and the tracer bullets were observed by the SAS patrol. After a minute or two, the soldiers heard another burst of gunfire. They did not know that this was in fact IRA terrorists firing their guns in the air as a tribute to Tony Doris, another IRA man who had been killed in a firefight the previous year. For all they and their commander knew, hiding behind their hedge, the murder gang were engaging other soldiers or other policemen. Within a minute, the lorry appeared out of the darkness, driven at breakneck speed, lurching around corners and with its engine screaming in too low a gear. As it drove into the car park, headlights illuminated the SAS position behind the hedgerow. At that point, the soldiers did not know whether they had been spotted. Fearing they were about to be attacked, the soldiers stood up, advanced on the occupants of the lorry and the three other vehicles in the car park, and opened fire. Four IRA members were shot dead, one was wounded, arrested at the scene and, notably, given first aid by the soldiers, while others fled in the three cars. Like all counter-terrorism actions at the time, the operation was reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and all soldiers involved were found to have behaved entirely properly. Now we fast forward to February 2025, when Mr Justice Michael Humphreys ruled that the use of lethal force by the SAS in this incident was unlawful. The ruling is demonstrably wrong and ignores the facts. I find it hard to imagine a more clear-cut situation that would allow firing without challenge. Clonoe is just one incident in which elderly veterans are being persecuted, there will be many more. Terrorists killed 722 British soldiers during the Troubles. Not one of those murders has led to a retrospective inquest, let alone a prosecution. But today, we witness a legal crusade against the men who risked everything in the service of peace. This is not justice. While the killers walk free, authorities hound the men who stopped them, like criminals. The Legacy Act, which created a new body known as the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) to take over all Troubles-era cases, was designed to put an end to this travesty. But the Government's dithering response has handed the initiative back to those who spent decades glorifying violence. Labour must decide whose side it is on: the defenders of this nation, or those who tried to destroy it? Our veterans, many now in their seventies, deserve peace in retirement, not a knock on the door and questions about a firefight in a chapel car park three decades ago, in which they were operating well within the law. Brave soldiers who served their country with honour, heroism and skill during the Troubles now have the Sword of Damocles hanging over them. I have repeatedly asked the Government to end this shameful campaign of retrospective justice. I have received no meaningful answer. That is why I support the petition calling for an end to these prosecutions – and the Mail's important new campaign, Stop the SAS Betrayal, to seek new legal safeguards for our troops. The petition has now passed 100,000 signatures, triggering a debate in Parliament. But that is just the start. This is not just massively important to our veterans. If this rewriting of history succeeds, this weapon of lawfare can be used against soldiers in any future conflict, destroying the efficacy of our troops when we need them most. The Rt Hon Sir David Davis is MP for Goole and Pocklington.
NBC News
2 days ago
- NBC News
Zohran Mamdani's social media strategy was about more than viral videos
Sitting on the subway and holding a MetroCard as a microphone, Zohran Mamdani had a hot take for New York City: that he should be its next mayor. The scene was from a June ' Subway Takes ' TikTok video that amassed more than 3 million views — part of a broader push by Mamdani to meet voters where they lived online. By the time his grassroots campaign reached primary day, he had won the backing of major social media figures like Emily Ratajkowski and engaged with voters through popular accounts like Pop Crave. Thousands expressed enthusiasm for his candidacy in comments on his dozens of social media videos, which experts say pitched his platform and personality to voters so convincingly that he outpaced former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in polls before beating him in a sweeping primary win. When the 33-year-old state lawmaker, then little known, first announced his mayoral candidacy last fall, he was considered a long shot. Mamdani was a self-described democratic socialist and deeply critical of Israel's actions in Gaza — factors that made him an unlikely Democratic candidate at a time when the party has been veering away from left-leaning values. But in the months leading up to Tuesday's election, Mamdani had skyrocketed from obscurity to internet fame, amassing more than 1 million followers on Instagram, as well as hundreds of thousands on TikTok and X. Though his viral social media campaign has echoes of Kamala Harris' own meme-filled run, analysts say Mamdani's exhibited key differences that helped usher him to real victory. 'If you ask voters, 'Why did you vote for Mamdani?' ... I don't think they're going to tell us, 'Oh, because I saw some cute thing on social media,'' said Jonathan Nagler, a politics professor at New York University and the co-director of its Center for Social Media and Politics. 'I think they're going to say what actually influenced them is because they learned something on social media about policies he had that mattered to them.' In his viral videos, Mamdani makes his hopes for the city clear: to lower the cost of living by raising taxes on the richest New Yorkers. His core campaign promises — rent freezes, fast and free buses, universal child care — have been the bedrock of his online platform. The more policy-focused online discussion stands apart from the content that defined Harris' online campaign, which included the aesthetics of Charli XCX's Brat and viral nonpolicy soundbites like Harris' reference to falling out of a 'coconut tree.' But along with policy, Mamdani also added personal flair to his online campaigning. In one recent video, Mamdani dapped up New Yorkers as he walked Manhattan from tip to tip, saying that residents 'deserve a mayor they can see, they can hear, they can even yell at.' He explained ranked-choice voting while speaking fluent Hindi in another video, complete with playful South Asian pop culture references. And when his campaign became the first to reach the $8 million spending cap in this year's mayoral race, Mamdani posted a video urging viewers to stop donating and volunteer to canvass instead. Anthony DiMieri, a filmmaker who works on Mamdani's campaign videos, said part of the mayoral candidate's popularity comes from the consistency of his character on and off camera. Mamdani is also highly involved in the video ideation process, he said, and will often add in spontaneous jokes or ideas during shooting. 'We met people on the campaign trail who said they joined because of the videos. We were like, 'What brought you here?' and they're like, 'I just loved his videos' and 'I haven't seen anybody like this,'' DiMieri said. 'We've all had a lot of fun doing this work, and I think the fun we're having is translating to audiences.' The momentum grew offline, too, as tens of thousands of volunteers showed up to door-knock for Mamdani in their neighborhoods. Online, his supporters shared stories of how they convinced their family, friends and neighbors to rank him first. Pranjal Jain, a digital strategist who worked on influencer strategy for Harris' vice presidential campaign in 2020, said Mamdani's social presence 'dismantles the ivory tower' that so many politicians keep themselves in. He's meeting New Yorkers on the streets with a warm smile, she said, and speaking to them like they're his peers. 'He is so smiley, he's so giggly. He's always hugging people,' Jain said. 'He's just running a grassroots and community-driven campaign, and I think his body language embodies that. Like, I've never seen Cuomo hug anyone in my entire life.' Experts agreed that the personality that shone through in Mamdani's videos effectively captured his audience in a way that Cuomo couldn't. 'It's not only about online or social media presence and filming spectacular actions,' said Magdalena Wojcieszak, a communication professor at the University of California Davis. 'It's also the fact that Mamdani is a very young 'digital native' outsider who has the charisma, humor, and personable nature that many politicians across the political aisle lack partly due to their age, political experience, and being seen as part of the 'establishment.'' Similar to Harris and President Donald Trump during their presidential campaigns, Mamdani has also been backed by online influencers and celebrities, appearing in videos with personalities ranging from Saturday Night Live cast member Sarah Sherman to left-wing Twitch streamer Hasan Piker. But Jain said Mamdani's influencer collaborations worked because these videos still incorporated talk of his policies and positions as opposed to relying on 'fluff.' He took a different approach to Harris' campaign, which she said failed despite being backed by ' Brat summer ' and celebrity appearances because those partnerships didn't meaningfully showcase why they aligned with Harris as a candidate. Throughout his campaign, clips of his mayoral debates, including his handling of questions pressing him on his opinions on Israel and his searing critiques of Cuomo, also became fodder for memes and discourse that propelled him further into online popularity. Meanwhile, Mamdani has remained firm on some of the most controversial stances in establishment American politics: He has characterized Israel's actions in Gaza as 'genocide' and described the phrase 'globalize the intifada' as capturing 'a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights' — positions that have garnered him accusations of antisemitism. 'It pains me to be painted as if I am somehow in opposition to the very Jewish New Yorkers that I know and love and that are such a key part of this city,' Mamdani said last week at an event in Manhattan, where he also shared that he has gotten anti-Muslim death threats to himself and his family. Online, Mamdani has also faced increasing Islamophobic rhetoric from right-wing commentators and politicians. After his victory Tuesday, X was inundated with posts calling him a ' Muslim jihadist ' and comparing his win to the 9/11 terror attacks. To Jain, Tuesday's election was proof that Mamdani's viability as a candidate didn't hinge on his willingness to budge on his beliefs, such as his democratic socialist agenda and his support for Palestinians. 'I think it's really admirable that he stuck to his values. And I think that's what people want to see. No more of this centrist bulls---, right? It's important that we are able to see our politicians' opinions so we know if they're reflected in us or not,' Jain said. 'I feel like he ran a campaign because he believes that he as his most authentic self, really following his values, can help New York, rather than just pandering to try to get in office.'
